Skip to main content

Academic Journals Plagued by Bogus Impact Factors


The current status of academic publishing is worrying. Cybercriminals are now targeting academic audiences, making it necessary to inform both editors and authors about such issues. The latest involves bogus impact factors, which are challenging scholarly publishing. Legitimate impact factors are used by authors and editors to get a general idea of the audience, if any, for a particular piece or journal. The bogus metrics only add confusion in support of the cybercrimes of their initiators. In this paper, we discuss bogus impact factors, victim countries, and try to clarify the phenomena for both authors and editors.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Beall J. Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Scholarly open access. 2015. Pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2015.

  2. Beall J. Misleading metrics. 2016. Accessed 7 July 2016.

  3. Dadkhah M, Bianciardi G. Ranking Predatory Journals: Solve the Problem Instead of Removing It! Adv Pharm Bull. 2016;6(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gutierrez FR, Beall J, Forero DA. Spurious alternative impact factors: the scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays. 2015;37(5):474–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jalalian M, Mahboobi H. New corruption detected: bogus impact factors compiled by fake organizations. Electron Phys. 2013;5(3):6856–86.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jalalian M. The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them. Electron Phys. 2015;7(2):1069–72.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Memon AR. ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. J Pak Med Assoc. 2016;66(12):1643–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nolfi DA, Lockhart JS, Myers CR. Predatory publishing: what you don’t know can hurt you. Nurse Educ. 2015;40(5):217–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehdi Dadkhah.

Additional information

Authors note Our goal is to increase the quality of academic publishing, helping journals to improve themselves. We do not want to challenge legitimate academic journals, scientific databases, or scientific social networks. Our data may change due to updating of the related databases (such as Alexa), advanced techniques used by cybercriminals, and those who would expose them.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dadkhah, M., Borchardt, G., Lagzian, M. et al. Academic Journals Plagued by Bogus Impact Factors. Pub Res Q 33, 183–187 (2017).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Bogus impact factors
  • Impact factor
  • Predatory journal
  • Indexing bases
  • Journal metrics